Hi all, recently I was placed in the penalty box and while there I expressed my concern that there is no clarity in how it works. I was told that "punishable offences age off after years" but when I asked how long the mods ignored me.
So I'm here to publicly ask for a mod to provide a real breakdown of the rules around it. No more of this dispensing rules as you see fit, lay them out for us to know too.
Thank you
"Hello, you've called Solution Law… How can we help?"
"I told someone on OzBargain that I was going to snap their neck and I was put in the penalty box. You need to write OzBargain admins a very badly worded and poorly researched letter demanding that they cease and desist from putting me in the penalty box…"
"Hold my beer, fam…"
Dear sir/madam, my client wishes to inform of the intention to initiate legal chicken….
:p
No more of this dispensing rules as you see fit, lay them out for us to know too
The penalty box works on a points based system. Points add up over time so if the user has past offenses the next offense will result in more time in the penalty box.
Most first offences receive a warning worth 1 point. Another point, say for a user's 2nd personal attack receives another point worth a 1 day ban. Severe cases like sockpuppeting get 8 points worth a 14 day ban. It basically means that all penalty box moderation is consistently applied mathematically instead of arbitrarily.
Whenever a user does something wrong, they will get a PM and a chance to discuss in TWAM. It's always our position to work with users in most cases.
Wait. Sockpuppeting is an instant 14 day ban but malicious personal attacks require repeats before a 1 day ban?
Also, I got boxed for accumulation of "inappropriate" comments that didn't fall under a defined category. That's pretty arbitrary.
Correct. Sockpuppeting is a malicious act that undermines the voting system of OzBargain. Users need to trust that our systems aren't being manipulated and that deals are actually deals. Other than fixing up shitty titles, the remainder of employee time is spend investigating sockpuppeting.
Every time an inappropriate comment is removed, you will receive a PM with the comment and the guidelines. If this pattern of comments continues to happen, then bans apply.
That's pretty arbitrary.
It's pretty arbitary arithmetic.
Sockpuppeting is a malicious act that undermines the voting system of OzBargain.
It's opportunistic. They're exploiting the system.
It's pretty
arbitaryarithmetic.
If I call your comment "inappropriate", I'm not being "arithmetic". I'm being arbitrary.
It's opportunistic. They're exploiting the system.
Probably illegal under ACCC rules.
@jv: Definitely illegal. It's mentioning in our sockpuppeting guidelines. It violates the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 thus why we removed comments/posts/votes.
Whether the ACCC has the manpower to actually prosecute these cases is another story but if they ever get bored they can give us a bell.
@mapax: dealposter was https://www.ozbargain.com.au/user/365076/nodes
The unpublished deal also had a +1 from a new account made < 30 minutes ago (suss). Said account's first pos vote was on the rug deal, then went on a voting spree trying to blend in, lol.
ABN also had been cancelled more than 18 months ago - https://abr.business.gov.au/ABN/View?id=84873983302
OP also operated out of a gmail account and wants to charge $1400 for a rug
Two sockpuppet breaches and no permaban.
Where is the duty of care, why is the standard of admission for associated Reps so low around here?
Why are suss vendors allowed to operate here?
@payton: Sockpuppeted accounts and stores don't get permabanned on their first offense otherwise we'd have no stores left.
The deal is unpublished, the sockpuppeted account temporarily banned, and the store temporarily banned.
@neil: They're back, thumbing their nose, less than 6 hours later.
Two deals unpublished due to sockpuppetting, plus four fake accounts on the single valid deal
@payton: The last post was removed for insufficient quantity NOT sockpuppeting.
As hamza said:
All 4 accounts and the store were banned at the time, whether it be temporary ban for sockpuppeting or permanent ban for ghost account. As explained previously, we don't have a 1 strike and you are out policy.
first offense
Am I not seeing things correctly here? Do i need new glasses?
I'm not trying to push the issue but its just bugs me a bit that you mentioned its the first offense while the history page looks different
Deal one - shill accounts banned - deal still live
Deal two - sockpuppeting - unpublished
Deal three - sockpuppeting - unpublished
Deal four - insuff quantity - unpublished
Deal five - live
So its not quite first offense for this store/rep.
They had two s/p offenses (which got unpublished), plus the first one which was permitted to stay but shill accounts banned.
@payton: What you are not seeing (as a user level) is the date of when moderator actions occurred.
So 1 involved removing deal 1, temporary banning the account and store. Moderated on X date/time.
The 2nd involved removing deal 2, temporary banning the account and store & removing votes on another deal 3. Moderated on Y date/time.
Without getting into the details of any individual case, there are some internal guidelines with dealing with artificial voting/sockpuppeting. So there is a difference between friends or family voting up a deal vs. employees, ghost account (what you refer to as shill accounts) etc. voting up deals. In both scenarios, the accounts get banned but in the first scenario we remove the votes & keep the deal published whereas the later gets the deal removed & store banned.
There are a lot of internal guidelines based on experience over 14 years and 1000s of sockpuppeting of testing. We also give warnings before they vote if the user is new or the system flags the account as there may be a possible association.
The only offences that garner a permanent ban on the first offense is SPAM or a ghost account. I know all of these processes may be hard to understand from the outside but there is a method to the madness.
EDIT: We've reviewed the investigation & process of the 2nd incident and have now unpublished deal 3 (the earliest one) as well.
@jv: Just in case it read like I think sockpuppeting isn't a problem, I am not.
Just to clarify, I think sockpuppeting is bad but malicious personal attacks are worse.
Someone is sockpuppeting because it attracts financial gain.
There is no gain in personal attacks. They're doing so despite not standing to gain purely because they want to cause damage (emotional, psychological, whatever…). That has to be treated with more seriousness or none whatsoever if taking the protected speech stance.
A one day ban for multiple personal attack offence is just all sorts of confusing.
Just to clarify, I think sockpuppeting is bad but malicious personal attacks are worse.
x1000. I cite a recent example here where a far-left scumbag had gone on personal attacks. When the topic they brought up (c-16) was replied to in an intelligent debate, of course the troll ghosted the thread and never came back.
Difficult and pointless to have a civil discourse when you have frothy activists just spewing shit everywhere.
Seriously people, look at the tone of their comments and how delighted they are to kick a person when he's down - given how vicious leftists are, do you really believe them when they preach compassion and tolerance?
@payton: Just for clarity:
I cite a recent example here where a far-left scumbag
This is a personal attack. In normal circumstances, this will result in a warning/ban. However to illustrate what a personal attack is, this is it.
@John Kimble: Linking to a user and calling them a scumbag. Not that difficult that it needs an analysis.
@neil: I think ozb's definition of personal attack needs expanding.
There are personal attacks between posters who have no interest in being polite
Then there's also personal attacks used to shut down and derail civil discussion and attack the commenter (who have spent effort putting together a legit argument).
The second one is massively more problematic and damaging to the forum and unfair to the poster being hounded by these trolls.
The latter is what pegaxs and tshow are referring to. It really needs to be managed if ozb is to remain a decent place, a bit like a local version of Quora.
While we're on this topic, when an offender's comment gets taken down, all replies to it disappears, replies in which some people may have put solid time into writing. This also adds to the problem of threads being derailed - all it takes is one scu … (ehm, bad person), and 10-33% of the entire thread collapsed permanently. Maybe retaining the replies could be an option?
OTOH, its good that some of the repeat offenders/trolls are put on notice, eg this one
There is no gain in personal attacks. They're doing so despite not standing to gain purely because they want to cause damage (emotional, psychological, whateverā¦). That has to be treated with more seriousness or none whatsoever if taking the protected speech stance.
Quoted because this needs repeating.
@payton: Commenting Guidelines: Personal Attacks
Abuse, name calling and malicious comments directed at a person or a group of people are unacceptable. Disagreements and debates are fine and encouraged but please respect everyone's opinion.
..
There are personal attacks between posters who have no interest in being polite
We won't be banning people for being rude. We will however call users out from time to time and refer to being respectful on OzBargain.
Then there's also personal attacks used to shut down and derail civil discussion and attack the commenter (who have spent effort putting together a legit argument).
Discussion is fine. Discussion that derails or is a dissenting opinion which you or others may not like is still discussion and I don't think moderators want to be arbitrators of discussions as we aren't experts nor would be want to be heavy handed.
While we're on this topic, when an offender's comment gets taken down, all replies to it disappears, replies in which some people may have put solid time into writing. This also adds to the problem of threads being derailed - all it takes is one scu ā¦ (ehm, bad person), and 10-33% of the entire thread collapsed permanently. Maybe retaining the replies could be an option?
Removing the replies to the comment is an option that we usually check. In most cases, we remove them all as they quote the original comment and by removing the original comment, the replies also fail to make much sense. So we can assess on a case by case basis. Best to report the comment (or a nearby comment) to let us know or use TWAM.
@neil: Is name-calling allowed in general as long as it's not directed at anyone here?
Like could someone call a politiican, political party, celebrities a name. (eg. Liberal voters are racists?)
I was wondering if this was going to be taken down at the time(imagine if it was about something else about another group of people)
Is name-calling allowed in general as long as it's not directed at anyone here?
There is no equation or formula that you can look to in a vacuum on what people write. The best advice would be not to name call in general but definitely don't name call or attack any other OzBargain members. We want all members to feel comfortable to participate in the community without being attacked.
So if you said Britney Spears is crazy or Harvey Weinstein is a creep. Is that a personal attack? No. I'd say the effect on the community is zero to negligible.
If you said, Liberal voters are racist, I'd say that's quite an inflammatory comment that is likely to have a big effect on the community.
If you said ozbargainmember is a creep or racist then that would be a personal attack.
All of the above shouldn't be taken as supreme law but the point is to debate without resorting to attacking others. There is a definite problem in this world with the lack of critical thinking and debate rather than just attacking your opposition but maybe that's a conversation for another time.
@neil: That person I linked only commented on that thread to hurl accusations of transphobia, fascism, and all shades of rubbish at Peterson and people sharing the same worldview.
Zero positive contribution to the thread and conversation.
When its time to put actual counter arguments on the table, of course he copped out - "I'm not going to do the work that you so clearly need to do yourself"
When a scholarly, educated person replied to him, he ran off.
What would be the appropriate term for this sort of behaviour? :)
What would be the appropriate term for this sort of behaviour? :)
Wouldn't that come under "Trolling"? Since he's trying to be funny all whilst putting in a convincing looking paragraph to look good and then when they get called out on it (after some smartypants who decides to actually put in the effort to go and break down his "convincing paragraph" or wall of text) they disappear never to be seen again…. OR they continue but derail it even more to the point that whatever they're talking about is no longer related to the thread topic at hand….and this will keep going until either the "troll" gives up responding or the other party responding to the "troll" gives up responding… Thread necromancy may or may not continue this….
Of course they may or may not be "trolling" intentionally….they may even just be doing it for jest and a light laugh but aren't self aware that they've gone too far….. Or they intended to post genuine arguments but aren't self aware enough that they are instead "trolling" the the other party….only a psychiatrist will know for sure…..and everyone would need to have self awareness…..if it's intentional, then all bets are off the tables then!
They don't even have to be personal OR malicious… Someone can just read what they want into it, and if they think it is about them, that's enough grounds for a ban…
I've had times where I have begged a mod to step in when I was being absolutely caned in comments, being called names, belittled and trolled, and nothing. Guess these users didnt build up "enough points"
I got boxed for making a comment that mentioned no one, no user and no single incident, and that was enough to get me boxed. When I went to TWAM about it, it was marked as "solved" and not even a comment from any mod.
all penalty box moderation is consistently applied mathematically instead of arbitrarily.
You're selling it, Neil… I just aint buying it.
Same has happened. I was given the explanation, to paraphrase - "you have had multiple inappropriate comments in a period of time".
Asked which comments are inappropriate and why? Was told to refer to the rules.
@[Deactivated]: I love that… instead of an explanation you get a link to the rules.
I guess they at least talked to you and responded… All I got was "marked as solved"
I guess they at least talked to you and respondedā¦ All I got was "marked as solved"
Yes, we send the following PM to people after certain issues like personal attacks:
Please note that the penalty box length is predefined and based not only on the type of offence but also the number of past offences committed in a set timeframe (as per our guidelines). This is not negotiable and moderators will not reply to any requests in the TWAM forum to remove or reduce the ban. Thank you.
to remove or reduce the ban.
I didn't ask for a remove or reduction, I asked for some clarity and it was just marked as solved.
We also try to work with
stores andusers if they have some underlining/explainable circumstances
I'm not buying this either. No reply, no "RU OK?", nothing. Just marked as "solved". How is that "working with users"? There was obviously an issue there.
Haha :) I must say I definitely have a tounge in cheek way of speaking that the mods also like to be thor with the ban hammer to. It's rare that what I say it more then light hearted jest but it never gets taken that way in comments lol
I will never bag you or call you names because you own an Italian car ever again.
You didn't answer how they are worked off or disappeared..
Be careful, mod can know where you live/work at :p
If Neil wants to come to my house he should know I'm 6ft 3 and can drink 1.5-2 bottles of burbon, the least he can do is bring the burbon if he wants to murder me.
@Slippery Fish: haha, it's funny i tried to create same discussion like this in public forum before and immediately it was moved as TWAM.
I guess mods in here work in their own preference way depending on their mood on that day (they are still human anyway, so no complain here mod don't penalise me!)
And I stand by my opinion that favouritism is real in this site :p.
Anyway, i'm here to see some great deals so I'm over with the political side of Ozbargain.
@Taro Milk Tea: I moved your post as well. You went on a rant about a certain user which is not appropriate whereas this thread didn't. We were happy to discuss in TWAM which we did.
Points drop off after a few years both for users and stores. We also try to work with stores and users if they have some underlining/explainable circumstances, (e.g previous employee fired, going through divorce etc.) as opposed to threatening us (legally and physically) or constantly arguing that what they did was fine.
How many is a few. How can we see and track our naughty level. Can we view the reason we got the points.
I'm calling for an overhaul on the way this is shown to users if there isn't. I should be able to see how long till they age off…
@Slippery Fish: Wooo. I like that… Like the license demerit system… Log in… Wow, up for 11 points of 12, better pull my head in… "for a few years…"
@pegaxs: Lol someone already negged me, if I'll get the hate I might as well go full trump. Make ozbargain great again and pull down the wall, let us see behind the wall!
@Slippery Fish: Or perhaps the user can stop doing whatever they are doing instead of gaming the system to just meet whatever time constraints we put on. Penalty box times are shown to the user.
perhaps the user can stop doing whatever they are doing instead of gaming the system
A lot of the time, the user doesn't know what it was that they did. They get boxed and sent nothing but a link to commenting guidelines.
A lot of the time, the user doesn't know what it was that they did.
Incorrect.
A user always get a PM with the link to comment, the content of the comment, and a link to the commenting guidelines.
A user always get a PM with the link to comment, the content of the comment, and a link to the commenting guidelines.
Incorrect.
Quite often, the comment is removed. I was boxed and there was no reference to the comment and why I was boxed and how it related to the comment as it was removed so I was unable to go back and reference what I had actually said that got me boxed.
@pegaxs: They appear to be using the same rules/guidelines/"logic" as my wife…she gets angry at something I did (or didn't do), but when I ask her what I did wrong, she gives me the silent treatment/won't tell me and says I should know or figure it out myself š¤·āāļøš¤¦āāļø
@John Kimble: "YES! I am angry at you… and if you don't know why, I'm certainly not going to talk to you about it!" - My Wife…
@neil: Perhaps we could have clarity that's all I'm asking for, it's unreasonable to expect the people being punished wouldn't want clarity…
@Slippery Fish: What further clarity does a user need? We send the link to the comment or post, the content of the comment, the guidelines and how long you are banned for. I'm not really sure what else someone could possibly need. If a user is in a situation that they are continuing to attack others, make racist comments or whatever, then it's really something they need to work out in their lives. A lot of times there are some underlining stories which are just awful so we get it but people need to be responsible for their actions.
@neil: A way to see how many points we have and how long till they age off. Lol Thank you for implying I'm either a terrible person or have issues in my life. It could just be a dud sense of humor like the last joke.
@Slippery Fish: Then they'll lose power control over that. There are just many apparent cases some users do not get same treatments/penalties according to the rules
there are just many apparent cases some users do not get same treatments/penalties according to the rules
I have said this a few times and I am usually negged to oblivion or a mod comments that my claims are unfounded.
@Taro Milk Tea: For what reason would we apply penalties differently to different users? I mean what would be the advantage? We don't know you.
For what reason would we apply penalties differently to different users?
Various reasons Neil, this site is still a business regardless. You can't apply same treatments to all people in a business, compromise exists in all business.
I mean what would be the advantage?
Less personal advantages, more to keep business advantages alive
We don't know you.
Obviously you don't know me (or do you? You guys can investigate in ways we don't know :p), but you do know some people here of course, from the meet up etc.
Various reasons Neil, this site is still a business regardless. You can't apply same treatments to all people in a business, compromise exists in all business. more to keep business advantages alive
You are making an unfounded and malicious assumption. I know the world is all about unfounded conspiracies now but we are an independent site.
We don't give a shit what company you are or who you are. We've banned JB, Kogan and loads of stores and reps. Everyone is subject to the same guidelines.
You are making an unfounded and malicious assumption. I know the world is all about unfounded conspiracies now but we are an independent site.
independent business site
We don't give a shit what company you are or who you are.
profanity detected! 1 point deducted? :)
We've banned JB, Kogan and loads of stores and reps. Everyone is subject to the same guidelines.
Agree to disagree. It's your site, i won't win.
@Lysander: I see you put question marks, so the answer is no. Moderators/employees don't have access to financial information nor do I think we can even figure out user/revenue information on a user level as all ads are managed by Publift.
@neil: Thinking more affiliate links.
Users who post plenty of Amazon links are more valuable than those who post deals for stores where there is no affiliate income.
Thinking more affiliate links.
Users who post plenty of Amazon links are more valuable than those who post deals for stores where there is no affiliate income.
and no answer about this lol. As I said, mods can be as democratic as they claim to be. Still a independent business site for me, of course they won't action equally. OzB is not a charity.
So yes, part of us as users need to take this political aspect aside, and just treat this site as a place to find bargains.
Mods are human anyway, there is no way they can be perfectly following the rules they created themselves (though they always claim that they are)
and no answer about this lol.
I thought it was obvious in the last answer. Again, I have to call out this narrative that OzBargain or employees are moderating based on revenue or affiliate or Amazon whatever. It's simply false and I don't know how many times I can repeat it.
@neil: With all due respect,
saying it is one thing but if the actual actions paint a different picture or at least appear to do so then saying it and repeating it a million times won't help either.
Given that Ozbargain is a business that would be understandable too.
I think what people might find upsetting is saying it is not happening when it seems it is.
@Lysander: I know claiming fraudulent actions without providing evidence is the hot world trend right now but it's simply spreading misinformation. We've spoken about this in acting respectfully and we provide a monthly transparency report which breaks down all of the moderation actions during the month.
@neil: Fraudulent is a strong word and I think very inappropriately used here.
There is nothing fraudulent about protecting business interest. It is perfectly okay to do that and in that vein it would also be okay to apply the rules somewhat "flexibly"
What I think is not okay to then say it is not business that comes first.
I understand the transparency report but even there it is you who decide what is deemed transparent and what is not.
Clearly, this thread shows there is a big misunderstanding and confusion about the penalty box system, and there is apparently great demand to make that more transparent. That is not done, again for business purposes and that is fine.
But when it comes down to it, to me that is an essential in any transparency report while for you it obviously is not.
If government institutions made decision without having to show their justifications, I am sure you and everyone else (including myself) would be rightly upset. If government institutions did not have to do that and we did not have access to it, they could, for example, make some notes about you that are factually wrong, and it is those note that makes you fail at government job applications. If they did not have to give you access to those notes so you could check they are correct, and correct them if necessary, then such situation would affect you perpetually.
I get you are not a government institution but speaking of transparency in that report is a bit misleading in my opinion - to me it appears to be more a statistics report as that clearly is what is shown there. In fact, there is no data on personal attacks, number of short, medium, long, permanent bans and more importantly, why those mod actions were taken (e.g. "calling someone a Steam fanboi" clearly showing that this is an insult for Ozbargain.). Only then the info is useful and people can learn from it and get a better idea.
And just for your information: I do find likening me (even though you did it indirectly) to the Trumpists who deny the election very insulting. Even more so than for example, calling someone a Steam fanboi which is apparently a bannable offense. ???
@neil: What I would like to know - have you ever banned yourself or another member of the mod team or power users or do they happen to be immune (as Trump is for now with Twitter)?
Your comment here is insinuating a lot of negative personal things and could very easily be interpreted as an attack on user Slippery Fish.
Psychs would have a field day with this comment.
What I would like to know - have you ever banned yourself or another member of the mod team or power users or do they happen to be immune (as Trump is for now with Twitter)?
I haven't banned myself or any other moderators. Yes, power users have been temporarily banned after being removed as a power user.
So to break it down, users are promoted by moderators to power users. We are pretty selective with our criteria and won't pick users who have been penalized among the love of fixing titles. We then are also selective picking moderators who basically need to be able to take abuse constantly without blowing up. This hasn't always been the case at the beginning when we had moderators who did get quite heated.
Your comment here is insinuating a lot of negative personal things and could very easily be interpreted as an attack on user Slippery Fish.
I've only spoken in general terms and haven't addressed anything specific about that user.
@neil: "We are pretty selective with our criteria and won't pick users who have been penalized among the love of fixing titles"
Not sure if I understand that sentence. Can you explain that please?
@Lysander: We are selective in picking power users. We won't pick users who have been penalized. We will pick users who like to fix titles (as seen by reports made).
Is there anywhere we can find whether or not we've accumulated points/committed offences?
I'm curious to see if I'm getting any presents from Santa this year.
No. This is the point I'm making.
I'm guessing they keep it vague otherwise people could skirt the rules by knowing.
i.e wait for a current offence to go away before trolling again to avoid the box.
@SnowDragon: But, that's life, isn't it?
Driving demerit points … you know what each offence is worth and you know how many you've got left.
Sports … you know what the penalty will be for each offence and whether that's worth it in the context of game.
Etc. Etc. …
@Slippery Fish: No, a place of practicality.
If anything, the aim is to have the user operate from a place of fear (or, caution) like in the panopticon. You don't know when you can get away with something, so users don't even try it. In theory, anyway.
@Slippery Fish: I find underestimating others leads to less disappointment - in this case it didn't work out.
@ozbjunkie: Lol so I'm disappointing? You would wanna watch that's not taken as a personal attack š¤£š
@Slippery Fish: Quite the contrary, it would have been disappointing if you were serious rather than joking.
Although less disappointing due to my low expectations.
If you've broken the guidelines, you'll be PMed. A user can always ask in TWAM if they are not sure.
You've never had any issues SnowDragon.
If we have a comment deleted for ābeing inappropriateā or āpersonal attackā do we automatically get a penalty point and a PM?
One of my comments was removed without receiving a PM.
If we have a comment deleted for ābeing inappropriateā or āpersonal attackā do we automatically get a penalty point and a PM?
If a comment is removed, you will always receive a PM. We set this system up years ago so we didn't have people asking the question in TWAM. 1 point.
One of my comments was removed without receiving a PM.
I don't see anything recorded on your account.
There is an existing process where you can ask the mods for a review of their decision. If they affirm their original decision you then have the ability to apply to NCAT for an administrative review of the decision.
Maybe.